"Google and MPEG LA announced today that they have entered into agreements granting Google a license to techniques that may be essential to VP8 and earlier-generation VPx video compression technologies under patents owned by 11 patent holders. The agreements also grant Google the right to sublicense those techniques to any user of VP8, whether the VP8 implementation is by Google or another entity. It further provides for sublicensing those VP8 techniques in one next-generation VPx video codec. As a result of the agreements, MPEG LA will discontinue its effort to form a VP8 patent pool." The word that stood out to me: the auxiliary verb 'may', which has a rather low epistemic modality. To me, this indicates that this is not so much a clear-cut case of VP8 infringing upon patents, but more a precautionary move on Google's part.

Everything about the statement says: we'll let you craft this statement to save as much face as possible but everyone will know and understand the truth -- that you are licensing patents that you need for your format.

The statement is so short is basically says nothing at all, other than "One of us agreed not to sue the other one."

To me it seems that as it covers sub-licensing and because it was done so quietly and quickly, Google were probably in a strong position: On2 held video codec patents too you know.

Either way, the fact is now that VP8 and WebM are in an even stronger position. The argument of "I can't use VP8 because of possible patent issues" is now invalid. I look forward to seeing Apples response to this.